Skip to main content

About this Show





San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel v78






San Francisco 5, Sequa 3, Jefferson 1, Mrs. Hayward 1, Retainside 1, Ms. Rogers Or Ms. Hayward 1, Avalos 1, Ms. Hayworth 1, Moore 1, Fong 1, Retina 1, Ellis 1, Cincinnati 1, Us From Japan 1, Ohio 1, China 1, The City 1, Housed 1, Wyoming 1, Unoccupied 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV2    [untitled]  

    October 31, 2013
    1:00 - 1:31pm PDT  

>> some of the previously rented units who don't want to move are forced to make other means to make those units available for family use. the other one is it removes discretion from the demolishes within a 5 or 10 year period of time i jefferson oppose this on any legislation and that's why conditional use is a lot better way to do them rather than an out right band. there are times when there is a merger and we should allow it. so that takes away some of our
control and it takes away for more of our control from dropping units from 4 to anything over 2 which means the appellant will body is a board of supervisors. so whatever we do will be over turned by the board are less turned over in the oppose direction we vote against the appeal and they will override it. it takes away some of our control but i think this is bad legislation. i don't know if the - other thing that's in the lengths we have the ability to allow demolitions which it's felt that the structure is not affordable therefore it doesn't come before planning commission if i'm not mistaken >> there's no change to the
unit that are not affordable. >> but there's no inclusion in here for messengerers. you'll have loot renovates in the reign a. are that would be something that should be looked at have one standard for demolitions we should have that for merges or messengerers that's something i suggest to the supervisors >> unless i'm moond this there's remains on expectation in the mergerers that have been deemed not affordable have not subject to the discretionary review, however, if the merger
were it wouldn't apply. >> thank you very much. sometimes a merger is the most affordable way for a family to accommodate their needs they can't 2350rd to go out and buy 3 separate rents. and so i think it has to be evenhanded. so, anyway i am sorry to see that state moves out of step and it's not surprisingly that families leave san francisco because they can't modify their residents to meet the family need and we're making it more difficult >> commissioner moore. >> i wanted to support of the points made and a confirmations. i'm very much in support of 10
years and i would also suggesting to create that supra protection to have the legislation start to be effective right now even though that's pending for proper language. the question which the president fong made raised a question for me asking perhaps ms. rogers or ms. hayward not all east e ellis acts are reported. so when somebody points out that a rent control is lost those evictions that occur because somebody gets a buy out which is still evictions not reported so a number of evictions is significantly higher than what is on the meter of trying to
count. the "x" did he see of people in rent control and thus affordable unit is far, far larger than any number can indicate. i live in a neighborhood surrounded by what used to be rental apartment. to what degree they were affordable i can't tell but for years i've talked with supervisor chu about those apartments are all empty. there's somebody waiting for something in order to occupy them with a different form of renters or whatever. it's sad to see there's a large housing stock unoccupied at this point held back because of the things wore discussing here today
>> understood. >> i'm supportive as well. i wanted to ask supervisor avalos staff why are we getting the proposal now without the language why not wait for the language? i believe we had scheduled that back and thought we'd have the language by now we wanted to keep the hearing date >> i think you're hearing we're all supportive and obviously rerealize right now, we're having a crisis to the extent we can uphold the housing element in keeping our affordable housing stock on the market is very important. i'm supportive of the 10 year i think the economic cycle i want to keep it a 10 years because of
the market. i don't want to create on incentive for people to do that. i kind of want to go into the question i think that ms. hayworth talked about the merger then apply for the ellis i'm trying to think about what kind of properties to get a merger first and i would think if you have tenants living in those buildings. i'm trying to figure out >> procedurally i think you could apply for a merger with the tenant - >> it could practically work that way. >> commissioners i wanted to add an apologize we didn't ask the staff and board to be here. we'll do better to do that
outreach in the future so sorry about that >> commissioner. >> i was going to make a motion to recommend for approval it's odd because we're not recommending lengths but i guess to keep the 10 year prohibition in the event date being no earlier than today's hearing on the legislation and maybe to consider alternative for non-ellis act no fault. >> second. >> one final thing unfortunately, there is 0 no means test so many people under retina control are making very good incomes and many of come to me and said this allows them to buy in the san francisco area but they barely have the 50
percent necessary. this is a big that flaw in the ordinance that needs to be corrected in the future >> many rogers i wanted to get some clarification. we're talking about two different effective dates? the effective date for when it would apply for somebody in the process. i think your motion commissioner says if i the effect date it wyoming be your preference so if someone applies for a merger or demolition on or after today it applies to that application and the 10 year miracle would also apply so if they've evicted
anyone after their application today you would apply it? >>right. >> i just have a question and a oh, one final question. mrs. hayward are you aware of any other jurisdiction in the bay area or san francisco that has legislation similar to this legislation even earlier legislation that has prohibits or makes all messengerers and other types of items coming before the board for discretionary planning >> i'll do some reach. >> if i could get one more clarification i got two things what was the third modification. >> i think we're talking about
ellis no fault evictions and i don't think there's limitations on o m i but i don't know enough about that so just to ask the commissioner to look at be possible, you know, different caesar contrary or time limits for non-ellis no fault evictions. >> understood. shall i call the question then. commissioners on this maternity or matter on the motion to recommend approval that includes the 10 year that the effective date be nor earlier than today and the criteria for no futility
evictions on that matter (calling names) so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero >> no. no >> i apologize 6 to one. commissioners that will place you on item 10. at 248 go ninth street for an appeal of a negative legislation >> i want to announce we have a new anybody he comes to us from japan a masters in the university of cincinnati, ohio. he's worked to a number of jurisdiction and heats joined the department in june of last
year but this is the first time you've seen him here so welcome. good afternoon, commissioners. i'm from the planning department joining me is the senior environmental planner. this is the negative desolation for the proposed project on ninth street the demolishing demolition of two one story buildings used for storage and the construction of a mixed utilities building with ground floor restaurants space. you should have before you a packet of executive summary. the planning department accomplished this on miracle 2013. the public works m.d. stated
that the comment was 20 calendar days. i.e., by 5:00 p.m. this area has been corrected on the cover page. the department received an appeal letter on april 3rd, 2013. the primary issues were concerned about the noise and dust from the proposed constricts. is it proposed that the eir is wanted given to the environment and a resident. exhibit a in our appeals packet is addressed in the appeals letter. after the public works m.d. was accomplished on march 6 it includes the rules adopted on
may 2013. it became effective in april 2013. the proposed project was distributed but does not fully comply with the planned. the proposed project has been modified to comply that the project amended plans. because the project proposed couldn't have an significant impact on the environment the planning department prepared a public works m.d. the issues raised the public works m.d. addressed the prashlg noise and found that the proposed project both would be less than significant. the public works m.d. aided the
potential air quality for construction with respect to dust and criteria airports and gasess and oxide materials and toxic air pollutants and found it would be less than significant impacts it's old on page 72, 75 both customarily. as issues raised by the complaint ant. sequa guidelines sections provides that evidence of social effects that don't contribute to or not changing the environment is not substantial evidence. no evidence has been presented
by appellant. this would not warrant the shrewd of an eir if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them. open this up for public comment and jackie bringing son >> p are if i have something for the overhead just start talking good afternoon again and i've already told you about the miss spelling of my name. good afternoon, commissioners.
i'm here because as a person who's concerned about this neighborhood to - it's not doing what i want it to do - >> this is page 34 of the report. and what i want to bring to our attendance and it has to do with the parking lot and cars and where cars are going to be. at this end of the block is a restaurant and at this end of the block is a retail store. we have a number of businesses which are occupying all those buildings. we don't have an empty building this is not a current building. this is on ninth street that's been currently boarded up.
there is as you can see here - there's a fire hydrant and that's the curb in front of the building that's red zoned. with you will all those various retail plays there's limited parking. what's proposed for the ground level is an organic china that restaurants. there's going to be parking for 15 bicycles in the lobby for this building and the question, of course, which come down to my mind is where are people going to park their cars who can afford to live at those comedies flare not all going to be riding their bicycles and where are people going to park their cars to go to the restaurants.
there needs to be more investigation as far as the impact with those additional cars and, of course, they would have to spill over into the neighborhoods as there are streets off of here. that's all basically, i have to say because what i had to say about the health issues have been said. unless you have questions of me >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> do we take public comment on this item. >> it's a matter on your calendar commissioners. >> any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner >> yeah. i have some questions for staff. i realized that jefferson
speaking parking in and of itself is not to be a part of sequa. but traffic is. and i'm reading the part of the report that talked about traffic - talked about parking but it sort of supposed because i believe this project has no parking people will use ultimate means and that's somewhat fictitious. i'm not sure if there's a traffic analysis in here take a look at the additional traffic that will be generated by people looking around to try to park their cars that retainside in t condos that should there the
traffic. - increase the traffic >> i'm with the planning department. getting back to our questions. i believe your referring to page 47 of the amended public works n d and a yes. yes. >> my understanding that the traffic study that was especially prepared was not faith the demand for transit services, however, what we say as you said we don't consider parking impacts sequa impacts so this is a typical analysis we do for this too high projects if that answers your question. >> it actually don't talk about the 24 spaces because the short-term demand that probably be used for restaurants patrons
or others being resident of 16 so it is analyzed in here. we're not here to decide whether or not we like the project but there's an analysis the problem but it's felt that it doesn't rise to the level we need to do further environmental novels based on this shortfall of parking >> yes. that's my understanding. >> thank you. thank you >> at the commissioner. >> i'd like to make a motion to uphold the negative declarations. >> on that motion commissioners to uphold the negative legislation (calling names) so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero and a commissioners that will place you on item 11 a and
banishing for the cases. at 470 castro street. commissioners you'll be considering the request for the use authorization and considering the question for variance. >> and our project sponsor has to material in the packet to pass out good afternoon, president and councilmembers. it's a request for a continual use authorization to allow over 4 hundred thousand secret. as defined in section. it's also a nonprofit and is a
neighborhood serving use by the san francisco aids foundation. this foundation is proposing to consolidate 3 programs housed at 3 different floeksz the castro location. the concept is to bring those services together under one roof to be a wellness center for folks effected by hiv and a aids in castro. it's a two-story 45 feet building and the project sponsor is proposing a one story addition that will result in approximately 40 foot tall three-story structure. the proposed square footage of the building will be fourteen thousand plus. and this prototype use size includes the current space that rush blind bar is on the castro
ground floor. their commercial lease expires in 2014 and if they choose to leave the project sponsors are including that space and the total use size if and when blush wine bar leaves. they propose tenant improvements as well as a new 23r07b9 facade. and the project sponsor team will walk you through the detailed of the designed work. they've received 5 letters of support. this being the castro various groups and the board of supervisors of the san francisco aids foundation. the department recommends approval with conditions but before i go into why our
department supports the project i want to call your attention to the off street parking. as such their requesting a reduction in parking requirement and the project sponsor is requesting a modification for the rear yard to the third floor addition and this meets the thresholds for let's xhoefths. in addition a variance will be sought to allow the balcony on the feud and they will request this after the entitlement. that finally, there's if this intermediate is granted the department will work closely with dwp and the project team as the castro street xylophone is in the final phases of destiny
and we'll make sure that the parking requirement and street trees are accepted. the basis of our recommendation includes the nonprofit social services are in existence and are xhfth with neighborhood character. it's a all purpose neighborhood service project. this district can accommodate this size and their recognized national and international as lgbt activeism and this services as the lgbt community and for the social services to the
community. this concludes this presentation and our project sponsor is here to distribute it a little bit more. >> thank you. project sponsor, please >> thank you, president and councilmembers. i'm the chief executive director of the aids foundation. as mentioned we're currently operating 3 different programs our sexual health clinic both mental health known as stonewall and our aids under the project. demand has been growing and we're not able to meet the current demand. our magnet performed a lot of the services but had to turn
people away. this is why wore moving forward to come late those services and create the first dedicated facility for gay and bisexual men in the city. this demand is generated by people who work visit and play in the district. this will help us to expand the serviced and create a new program related to hiv and aging in the community. in our work to prepare for this new center we've been actively outreaching into the neighborhood and have been working with to the neighborhood groups as mentioned and received letters of support. we've been doing this over the last 6 to 8 months and not only because we building that's important